I disagree with some “scientists” in that I think it possible for people to know rather than simply to accept or believe. One thing I know is that there is no God, god, or gods.

The concept of a God, god, or gods is of human invention. Not only is god a derivation of our infantile awe that we held for our parents it is also a product of our effort to explain phenomena we found frightening and mysterious.

There have been many religions invented in humanity’s history and it is true that, as expressed by many, each religion is unlike any that came before or after. If there had been one true deity or many true deities this would not be the case.

Outside humanity there is no evidence of the god concept. Ritual developed by animals and humans are the result of the manner in which our brains learn. If something works most of the time, some action, some ritual, even if it fails at other times, becomes habitual.

There is much secondary evidence that leads to the almost ironclad proposition that such a deity as described by modern religion does not exist. For that deity to exist much of what we find in nature should not exist. This or that flaw in humanity’s physical body that points directly to continuous modification over millennia rather than instantaneous creation cannot be dismissed. Fossils existing in predicted depths and arrangement showing creatures that adapted over time by evolutionary means to changing conditions and locales is overwhelmingly damning to the concept of a supreme creator god. The fact that genetic evidence has now come along puts the lid on the coffin of the creator god’s casket.

Evidence that invalidates religion, including all the Abrahamic religions, showing how each were manufactured by human beings in an effort to manipulate others is the dirt that is shoveled over god’s coffin.

Then why do so many “atheists” proclaim merely that “We don’t know.” It is so very clear that we do know, but are afraid to say. These “We don’t know” atheists are truly simply agnostics. As far as I am concerned agnostics are simply cowards!

27 Responses to There Was Never a God … November 27, 2013

It’s intellectually lazy to say “I don’t know.” A positive statement (I do know) means one has to prove it, and that takes time and effort which most naked apes couldn’t be bothered with…. although it is essentially quite easy. You did it here in a few paragraphs.

I’m afraid the reason that “some scientists” (meaning most legitimate ones) don’t claim to know that there is no God is because, within a scientific context, ideas cannot be proven. They can only be well defended and backed up by evidence, and it turn they can be accepted by others based on the evidence. Even Richard Dawkins has accepted the remotest possibility of a deity. It is very often 99.999% percent certainty of the nonexistence of a deity, but to bring it to 100% makes it an unscientific statement.

He’s actually not my god, but I have certain ideas about proofs that I think should be applied if we intend to find an answer to a question regarding the nature of empirical things. As for proving His existence, it’s impossible to do, but I think that conceding the “burden of proof argument” to theists by attempting to prove the nonexistence of a deity is a bad idea.

He’s not your god? Who mentioned the sex of your god? Which god did you assume I was speaking about? Which of the near 3000 gods have you given some possibility of existence? All of them? Which of these gods which obviously originated in the mind of human beings do you like? Or, as many do, would you like to invent your own?

Well I assumed you were probably dealing with the Abrahamic God since His worship is the most common, but what I meant was that I don’t believe in gods, God, goddess, goddesses, or whichever variety you like if you want to be politically correct about gender and number. I only meant to inform you that I am not a theist.

Good. What label do you like? Non-theist, anti-theist, átheist, agnostic? Many non-believers prefer not to wear a label. Activists who work in hopes of a future world free from religion usually accept the atheist label. Despite the guarantees of our Constitution as pertains to religion I hope that human kind can free itself from religion before religion destroys us all.

I prefer not to use absolute labels, but non-theist works well enough. I feel that my personal philosophy is more complex than my position on the existence of deities, and I don’t want a label to give one idea precedence over others I have. Personally, I don’t think religion needs to be eliminated as you say you believe. There are plenty of perfectly decent religious people, and I have no need to limit their liberty by restricting their religious freedoms. I think that to claim that having a religious presence will lead to the destruction of us all is a bit of a slippery slope. I don’t see the correlation between religion and the apocalypse any more than I see the correlation between seismic activity and the apocalypse. If someone wants religion, they’re welcome to have it, as long as they let me have my own philosophy. When they start to infringe on my rights, only then will I resist.

Possibility and probability are two very different things. Anything is possible, but only a limited number of things are probable. Gods, as this post clearly points out, are not probable at all, and any claims they exist without credible supporting evidence can be dismissed with as much evidence. One need not be certain of the possibility, only the probability, and where the supernatural is concerned, it is more than 99.99999% certain that there is no reason to believe in the supernatural of any kind. It is scientific to specify probability and possibility as different things. There is not 100% impossibility of gods, but there is both near infinite impossibility and improbability… that makes gods one of the least well supported ideas every created.

Greetings. I’d like to inform you that Chris Langan (high genius of 200+ IQ) has mathematically proven God’s existence with his CTMU (acronymic for Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe). The theory is a logical tautology (i.e., an unconditional truth). This logically eliminates any exclusively-atheistic approach to reality. I’m currently running a blog on it. If you’d like to know more about the valid, scientific and mathematical definition of God I recommend looking into his PCID paper available online. Thank you for your attention.

What you are saying, of course, amounts to “I don’t care if they are living a delusion, as long as it is a harmless one.” I think all delusional beliefs, especially those based on the Abrahamic religions, have the potential to become dangerous under the proper catalyst.

The main question you have to ask yourself when coming upon such nonsense is this “Why aren’t the world’s scientists pointing a finger at the man and exclaiming ‘he’s so right'” Another obvious question that begs for an answer is: “Why the hell aren’t the Nobel Prize people at his doorstep?”

If someone wants to live in a delusion, that’s their right, and I don’t plan to stop them as long as let me live the way I want to. We are really all delusional about certain things if you think about it. Each of us believes something just because we’ve been told, and it isn’t always backed up by facts. Little things that make up our everyday human perception are inherently flawed and none of us realize it, but I digress. My question is this: if there is no God, then why do you assign some value to informing other people of this? Shouldn’t that be a conclusion they reach based on reasoned, scientific thought processes? I don’t understand the purpose of evangelizing disbelief. If someone needs to be convinced that God doesn’t exist, why bother? Keep them from hurting anyone and let them figure it out on their own.

Except logic is not theology (look it up). Logic is based on tautologies you can never disprove (they’re always true), e.g. the distinction between true and false is true in any condition – you can’t disprove that without a distinction between true and false; therefore, the tautology concept is valid in any case. You can’t disprove logic without logic. – do you see how it’s self-referential? Thankfully, the God concept is now verified under the tautological CTMU. If you don’t agree, you disagree with the entirety of mathematics (e.g., 2+2 = 4)…that’s simply absurd (and incorrect). I’m sorry if you can’t understand.

The flaw in your reasoning is revealed in the first sentence above. Tolerance is not a two way street to most theists. You are expected to tolerate their point of view, but, the very nature of their belief makes it impossible to tolerate your point of view.
Human perception is only what our individual brains make it to be. Each perception is most likely different and unique, but we can’t be sure because no one individual can even for an instance know what is in the mind of another.
As we know, a negative cannot be proven. It can no sooner be proven that a unicorn does not exist than someone’s god. Or so it is said. If you look upon the culmination of human imagination it is plain to see that god is only a concept of human thought. It exists no where else. Only as a thought. Each individual has a concept that is different from anyone else’s concept. Not only is it impossible for every invented religion to be right, it is impossible for every individual person’s concept to be right.
It is often said, and please forgive me if you have heard this, that if an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient god existed in reality, then every time a religion sprang up, that religion would always be the same as the one before it, as revealed by this omnipresent god. This is not the case, of course. On this alone many could dismiss god’s existence in totality. Yet the concept persists. Why is this so? Perhaps the concept of god replaces the security we possessed as children when we trusted our parents with our very lives. Perhaps there are some who cannot bear the thought of there not being some sort of “safety net” to catch them should they fall. Perhaps the entirety of religion is a crutch as many atheists assert.
In the face of the dearth of evidence supporting the existence of any god, let alone some Abrahamic one, doesn’t this make the insistence on holding on to a infinitesimal possibility seem silly? Doesn’t it boil down to the fact that for some this scrap of possibility is really a hope? If this is so, why do those that cling to this infinitesimal scrap insist that everyone be required to do so?
There comes a point when you sometimes have to adjust the percentages to correct for possible errors in the math, or in the reasoning. At this point, 99.999(infinity) estimated, becomes 100 % in reality. I am therefore 100% certain there is no god of the omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent sort.

That, sir, is the last resort of many theists… i.e. “you can’t understand”. Rest in the knowledge that you think you are right. No mathematical proof for god has ever withstood the test. Unless, like all theists, even those who claim to be scientists and mathematicians, you begin with the conclusion already set in concrete and the only efforts are made to prove it, and this requires the dismissal of any contradictory evidence along the way. It is clear to see that the conclusion “there is a god” is the conclusion of your desire. Why should it be any surprise that this is the conclusion that makes you happy. Do you think your “special, IQ over 200” mathematician is smarter than any body on earth and no one can understand the math he/she presents? If his proof was real, and conclusive, every scientist on earth would be exclaiming it so, and at this point there would be very few atheists. Instead, we see a steadily growing population of non-believers, fed up with the (forgive me) shit that flows from the mouths of theists. Another fifty years, should the theists allow humanity to exist, and there will be no theists.

Good grief, I’ve already clarified that logic does not equal religion (look in the dictionary please). If you don’t like logic, you’ll have to take your complaint to a mathematician – as I’m simply too busy to deal with people who can’t understand such simple terms. The theory is valid, and any mathematically literate person can know that. (Unfortunately for you, your insolent replies indicate you’re not so rational, so I guess I’m wasting time trying to gain your understanding. – You wouldn’t give an inch under any circumstance to someone that had mathematical verification if they put a blueberry-math pie in your face). Any reasonable person would not rule out God’s existence unless they knew for sure he didn’t exist. Now we know he does, because of something called logic (and the CTMU) – a concept you seem very unfamiliar with. Perhaps this is why you are incredulous of God, you are irrational and believe things for no reason (you claim God is a false concept yet you don’t know that because you can’t prove it). Take note the God concept is mathematically verified, however (as what cannot be proved empirically can be proved mathematically). If you don’t like that, I’m afraid to say the CTMU will become your greatest nightmare – it’s inevitable (and nothing can violate the laws of logic).

I am saying quite clearly that your mathematical proof is not what it claims to be, for it if was every scientist, everywhere, would be a believer. Instead we have an incredibly few who “claim” to be scientists yet also claim to believe. We are left with one conclusion. Your mathematical proof is a lie. Those “scientists” who claim to believe simply want to believe.
“Any reasonable person would not rule out God’s existence unless they knew for sure he didn’t exist” – We know he doesn’t exist, and any reasonable person using logic and reason would discount the possibility of God’s existence. As far as a specific god, the god of the bible, that is a laughable belief worthy of ridicule.

Do you realize that your “mathematical proof” has been around since 2011 and it hasn’t caused me any troubled sleep whatsoever?

Not only are the nearly 3000 or so gods of man’s invention laughable, so is your mathematical proof.

drenn1077 – “Your mathematical proof is a lie.”
How about having evidence for what you say instead of manufacturing bald assumptions and disseminating misinformation. I’d love to see you try to prove the proof is false (but you’re mathematically illiterate, so you can’t – and since it’s a logical tautology, it can never be disproven). It looks like I’m not the one lying here. Accept the proof or trim your sails and stay closer to home, your obviously not up to par with those capable of comprehending logic.

It’s the same old story with you people. Prove something negative. Prove god does not exist or I will keep on believing. Same old same old. You haven’t answered my questions either… where oh where are the scientists and mathematicians lining up to endorse your mathematical proof? Tautology: needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.” Repetition, the one thing in the box of the hopelessly lost, repetition.
The proof is not accepted. The pretense of proof is rejected. You are incapable not only of comprehending logic, but of recognizing it.
The fact that the “proof” is not universally accepted disproves it.

You are the authority concerning your own views. Assuming that you are offering us your sincere appraisal, this statement informs us, with high confidence, about your thinking on this subject.

Perhaps pertinent to this subject, reflecting upon all self-declared agnostics of my acquaintance who are also within my circle of longtime friends – a set if three — I haven’t detected that their agnostic views are motivated by cowardice. They presently described themselves as agnostics in our private conversations, a setting that I would describe as not particularly threatening, although there have been changes over the courses of the lives of all three, changes noted by me because of my interaction with them over the decades.

However, despite my own experience and for what it’s worth, with over 300 million people in the United States, I would go so far as to agree there probably are at least a few Americans who insincerely call themselves agnostics and can justifiably be said to be motivated by cowardice.

Let’s put my accusation of cowardice in the proper context. After all, it is only in the arena of social interactions that it is meant. Whereas many would admit and accept the label atheist when in closed company, when out in public among a circle of friends where such claims could lead to animosity the label is discarded and the label agnostic is applied instead. The label agnostic gives the hopeful what they need, that is, that the label bearer may someday be persuaded to believe should the right thing be said, or the evidence be more pleasingly presented. Donning the agnostic banner avoids unsavory conversation, especially among close family members. The closet is only open a crack.